Suchergebnisse

"The death of a person is a tragedy while the explosion of a lifeless galaxy is a mere rework. The moral difference is grounded in the nature of humans: humans have intrinsic worth, a worth that makes their fate really matter. This is the worth that the Australian philosopher James Franklin proposes as the foundation of ethics. In 'The Worth of Persons' he explains that ethics in the usual sense of right and wrong actions, rights and virtues, and how to live a good life, is founded on something more basic that is not itself about actions, namely the worth of persons. Human moral worth arises from certain properties that distinguish humans from the rest of creation (though some animals share a lesser degree of those properties): rationality, consciousness, the ability to act for reasons, emotional structure and love, individuality. This complex package makes humans the "piece of work" of which Hamlet says "How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty." In clear prose and deeply-informed philosophical argument, 'The Worth of Persons' establishes a foundation for ethics in the equal worth of persons, which makes ethics absolutely objective, and immune to relativist attacks because based on the metaphysical truth about humans. 'The Worth of Persons' will appeal to all those who feel that endless debate about ethical dilemmas, rules and principles fails to connect with what is really important ethically, that is, what makes humans matter"--

One of the most perplexing issues in contentious politics is whether political repression deters future contentious challenges. In order to understand this effect, it is important to look more broadly at what explains the persistence of contentious challengers. This study examines specific contentious challenges and assesses whether the challenger involved persisted by taking part in any subsequent challenges over the following twelve months. The results do not provide strong evidence of a direct, consistent impact of repression on persistence. However, the results consistently show that challengers are more persistent when they include organized groups, when they have staged previous challenges, when they seek regime change, when they oppose authoritarian regimes, and when they have mobilized more participants in protests. A key argument presented is that repression filters out less committed challengers, so that contentious challenges that emerge in more repressive situations are more persistent.

This article investigates the impact of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionality on political repression. Conditionality refers to the conditions that borrowing countries must implement before they can receive loans from the IMF. An original contribution is made by analyzing this impact using quantitative techniques for samples of developing countries covering 1980 through 1982. A more comprehensive model of political repression, focusing on political leaders' hypothetical reactions to and perceptions of challenges from society and on the constraints on their ability to react to the challenges, is also developed and tested. This comprehensive model receives the strongest support. The results show that political repression tends to be used as a response to threats from society, especially for leaders who have few resources at their disposal, who are constrained by certain IMF conditions, and who assumed power unconstitutionally. However, the overall evidence regarding the impact of IMF conditionality is mixed.